Talk:Starchild skull/Archive 2

www.starchildproject.com
This website is an unreliable and primary source and should not be used in this article. Verbal chat  15:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that there has actually been a great deal of selectivity in this article promoting a rather bland agenda.

This skull is, well... mysterious. It is of real scientific interest and it seems that there are those who would be happy to just dismiss it. Even if you don't think it is alien/human (and yeah, that would be really weird but no denying VERY cool) it is still a fascinating anomaly. This article makes one think only some idiot fringe would ever be interested in it. As the page stands at present it is not unbiased and we shouldn't pretend it is. Gingermint (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

DNA Analysis & Woven Fibers in Skull
The article says that DNA testing has shown conclusively that this is a human skull and both it's parents were human. However, the only information about any DNA testing recently I have found says that no nuclear DNA samples could be conclusively analyzed and only the mother of the creature that bore this skull was confirmed as being human.

I have also just recently seen a documentary study on the skull which showed that the bone was slightly harder than normal human bone, was more dense and less thick, and, most curious of all, there were strong fibers seemingly woven into the bone as way of re-enforcement. They said that no other known animal on the planet has such woven threads in its bone.

I assume these studies on the artifact I have read and watched were conducted sometime well after 1999 using more advanced techniques. I just find it odd that this information doesn't appear on this article and was wondering why that is. Necro-File (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Finding partial/inconclusive DNA is common, especially with old specimens like this as DNA is a molecule that rapidly decomposes/deteriorates unless properly preserved. Regarding the bone structure claims, first they need to be properly sourced before any attempts are made to introduce them to the article. Second, there are a multitude of disorders that cause similar things and the skull in question is already a candidate for a bunch of syndromes. Not saying that the case is concluded, but the "boring" explanations are currently in the lead.

Deletion
I realize this is an old thread, but I would like to reopen the discussion about deleting the Starchild Skull article before I flag it or do anything else. There are NO peer reviewed publications on this skull, and as such anything posted on Wikipedia is speculation, and should not be included. We can try to edit it, but anything we write is going to involve claims unsubstantiated by an expert, or at best, substantiated by experts who have not published their findings in peer reviewed publications.

For example, the only quote in the article: "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes," is from blogger Steven Novella on the website of the New England Skeptical Society. He may have an MD, but he has never himself undertaken a study of the skull, or published any sort of peer reviewed paper on the skull. In that sense he is just as unqualified as Pye himself, and should not be quoted in the Wikipedia article.

The image of the skull is no longer available at the link specified, so it may be in breach of copyright laws.

The article is incomplete, but I think that expanding it would only make the situation worse. For example, it makes no mention of the possibility that the XY result obtained by BOLD lab was potentially a contamination. A later test conducted by the more sophisticated Trace Genetics suggested that any nuclear DNA recovered by previous testing was a contamination: "The inability to analyze nuclear DNA indicates that such DNA is either not present or present in sufficiently low copy number to prevent PCR analysis using methods available at the present time." But regardless of this, NEITHER of these DNA reports were ever published by anyone other than Lloyd Pye.

In my opinion until there is reliable published data, Wikipedia should delete the whole article, or change the content to something along the lines of "There is no reliable information about this skull." If people want unsubstantiated information about this bone, let them get it from elsewhere on the internet rather than bringing down the quality and accuracy levels here. Any comments or suggestions? Archmjr (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's no reason to limit sources to the peer-reviewed literature. I don't see any reason to doubt what Pye says about the skull, even if the conclusions he draws from the data are...amusing. I'd be willing to bet that there's a good skeptical treatment of the subject in a book somewhere. Abyssal (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem Abyssal, there isn't a "good" skeptical treatment! There are only pseudo-science articles. I'm not discounting what Pye says, I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways. Either we include all of his findings and information about the skull, or none of it. It isn't OUR job to pick and choose what is fact and what isn't out of a source. In the absence of evidence aren't we supposed to admit that further research is needed before we can make a conclusion?

We could perhaps get around this by restructuring the article to include an extensive "debate" section giving Pye's research and then try to find opposing/skeptical views to all of it, but until there is some accepted document for use to reference that's really all that we can do and still preserve accuracy. Right now the closest thing to a definitive expert on the subject is Lloyd Pye, and it seems pretty clear that no one takes his writings seriously. Archmjr (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The starchild skull is so famous that I'm sure some skeptic has had to have discussed it in a book. I'm sure if we do enough poking around we could find a critical source to give the article some sane balance. Abyssal (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't found any. I would venture that most qualified scientists who aren't directly paid for their work on the skull think it's a waste of time to write a serious refutation. Pye goes into great detail in his book about it, and surprisingly does offer some small critical insights, and I understand that one person wrote a university thesis on the subject, but other than that it's pretty much a battle between UFO magazines and Skeptic magazines (on- or offline). That is why I think it should just be deleted. Could you imagine submitting an assignment in College or even High School that only sited sources as unreliable as those in this article? It's shameful.

I re-started this thread hoping to find a real solution to the problems with this article. I respect your opinions and you inclusionist philosophy, but I don't feel like we're moving toward a resolution. If you really feel the article needs to stay, do you have any suggestions for how we can make it better, or how we can express the controversial and debatable nature of the topic? Archmjr (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are skeptic magazine articles why not use them as sources? Abyssal (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Because they have just as much bias as the UFO magazines, just in the other direction. That is what I mean about picking and choosing from equally unqualified sources, and why I think the article needs to be deleted until reliable information is published by unbiased sources. Archmjr (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll be waiting for a long time, then, as no reputable scientist is going to treat the alien hybrid hypothesis as deserving of serious consideration, let alone "unbiased" treatment. Abyssal (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV you'll see that there are cases where (in my opinion) sources such as Pye can be used, and this is one of them. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with deletion because it is better to profide no information at all then this old and outdated information that has no connection with the reality of today! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.175.43 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I Also think a Deletion is in order, as Wikipedia should give fair and unbaised facts. The page only gives views that could be deemed as Baised Peterpanpirate (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Probably a brief mention in the Lloyd Pye article would sufficiently replace this article until there is more independent material to cite. Victor Engel (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
131.60.10.35 today added some edits containing some very extravagant factual statements. Statements of this type, when expressed as fact, must be impeccably sourced. These statements were all sourced to fringe websites, however, the most recent and most extravagant being a newsletter written recently by Lloyd Pye asking his loyal followers for more money. This is not acceptable. I have removed the statements because they are not verified (yes, we do know that Lloyd Pye has made them, but the issue is whether their import is verifiable, which is not evident from those sources). Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

General
May I ask why sources for this article are so unreliable. NESS stands for New England Skeptical Society. There are probably better sites for sources. Can anyone get more objective primary source? There is possibility that source-article has been influenced by their viewpoint and is thus unreliable. I suggest complete rewriting of this article as the sources of this article are rather questionable. This site in my opinion does not represent objective viewpoint and thus compete with wikipedia's high standards. Please re-check articles sources and style of writing.
 * You need to read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. THe NESS is not a primary source in any case, the primary sources I'd like to see would be the original scientific reports which don't even appear to exist other than the claims on Pye's site. Pye's site has what he claims are scientific reports, but they are unverifiable -- see WP:Verify. Without the scientific evidence, Pye's site is only a reliable source for his claims, but not for anything scientific. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability
Taking stock of the sources, they are report from a skeptical society, some material sourced exclusively from Lloyd Pye, and a couple of Fortean Times articles. On the basis of that doubtful sourcing the entire narrative is built, if I'm correct. What information do we have about the skull that is not released from sources controlled by Pye? What verification do we have for the material released by Pye, and which independent, reliable source verifies any aspect of the narrative? Perhaps I'm simply missing where these sources are cited in the article, but I think it's right to ask these questions, just in case this aspect of verifiability has, by some chance, been overlooked. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, we have no scientific evidence for this except from Pye, with no verification of Pye's claims. If you can find any, that would be great. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

New Research
I think this article needs to be updated as per the new research that has come in concerning the DNA of the skull which is very interesting, and the recent ruling out of any known human deformities as the factor for its size and shape by experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnderINK (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, when it's published in a scientific journal. Or maybe some other independent official report. But not just because it's on a website. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dougweller, I think you are using a biased approach to this article. Perhaps the new research hasn't been published in a scientific journal, but it should still be included under the section titled "Claims." A claim doesn't need to contain information from a scientific paper. Novella's credibility should also be put into question considering the skepticism of scientists, especially regarding HIV denialism. There is no objectivity in this article, which defies the ultimate goal of an ENCYCLOPEDIA created by the masses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genius1442 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But Dougweller was responding to UnderINK's assertion that "new research" needs to be included. Research of the sort suitable for inclusion should be published in a scientific journal. Objectivity does not mean parroting any claim made by anybody as truth. -12.110.4.145 (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm quite unsure why your first sentence implies that I did not understand Dougweller's response, but I'm going to ignore it. In my opinion, it seems you did not read the entirety of my response. To elaborate, nothing under the Claims section needs to be publish in a scientific journal, considering the very definition of the word "Claim," so why exclude the new research? If you go to the site and read the DNA-2011 Update, you can find that they have done DNA tests on the skull, which gives results that should be included in the Claims section. This is not "parroting any claim." They are using the National Institute of Health's genetic database to compare DNA recovered from the skull. Could there experiments and methods be a lie? Perhaps, thus why it is a Claim. The ENTIRE Starchild Project could be a lie, but it is what they are CLAIMING that is important. The Starchild Project site should be the primary source for the Claims section because it is THEY who are making the Claims. What about this is so difficult to understand? The Analysis section should use outside sources to show the readers actual scientific papers to support or refute the claims. If you disagree with my point, then change the name of the Claims section to more accurately reflect the information you intend to include in that section. I honestly think that the majority of the information under Claims should be moved to Analysis, considering most of the information describes analyses the physical properties of the Skull. Genius1442 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genius1442 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (BTW, I wrote the comment to which you are directly responding, but I apparently wasn't logged in at the time) When something is presented as research, then it needs to be backed up with verifiable data, such as that found in a peer-reviewed journal. That is what the original poster was saying, the nature of DW's response, and the nature of my response. As for claims, I agree that they do not necessarily need to include only peer-reviewed data, however such claims do still need to be established by external reliable sources as notable. I believe this article does a good job of summarizing the notable claims of Starchild proponents. This article need not go into detail on every single claim made, else this page be four times its current length of unverified or unverifiable claims.-Porlob (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use this page as a forum to discuss whether or not this is possible
Talk pages are not meant to be used as forums to discuss the subject of the article, they are meant to discuss the article. I understand that sometimes people find it difficult to make this distinction, but arguing about whether or not a hybrid is possible is not discussing the article, while, as an example, discussing whether certain references can be used that discuss the possibility that this skull could be a hybrid would be discussing the article. I've added a new banner to the top of this page, the first link leads to our guidelines on this. Please don't take this personally, anyone. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

DNA Testing
Everything I have read says the X/Y DNA results have been shown to be lab contaminations and are no longer considered valid. Is this true? If so you need to correct the page to reflect this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.68.232 (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If the documents you have read are good enough to be reliable sources according to WP:RS, you can add your comment to the article with references to those sources. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Skeptism is based on false `we are alone` theory.
Sept 28th. at The Press Club briefing in Washingtomn, and reported by CNN and the news media, it was disclosed that UFOs have been observed above nuclear missile silos worldwide, and that missile guidance systems etc. were deactivated at that time. 10 were at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, when a UFO hovered over the missile silo. Over 120 witnesses had given recorded evidence and many were present. Eaxample. The Base Commander Col Charles Halt, USAF, testified that in the UK he personally saw a UFO at the former military base RAF Bentwaters, near Ipswich, 30 years ago. During this time he saw beams of light fired into the base. He also heard on the military radio that aliens had landed inside the nuclear storage area.

What this must mean is that skepticism based on the impossiblity of it being et, as et does not `yet` exist, is no longer a valid argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyTCG (talk • contribs) 00:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What's your source for this information? If it's any good, we can add the material to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

References for The National Press Club conference on Sept. 27th, Washington, re UFOs shutting down, and/or seen at miltary nuclear missile silos.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyTCG (talk • contribs) 03:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * None of this mentions this article. Talk pages are not forums for general discussions, not even of the subject of the article, but this discussion in particular is irrelevant. The article should be based on reliable sources discussing the skull. Dougweller (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

But it is directly related! The sceptics argument is based on the false theory that we are alone, et doesnt exist etc. If it is `publically` acknowledged (whatever that may mean, as even then, there will be skeptics of et, ie the Govts always lie)!! that et exists, then surely if non- mitochondrial DNA is present, if the skull bone has a different non-mammalian composition, and has strange keratin fibres, if the eye sockets are shallow, if the sinuses are at the base, if the volume is higher, if the skull has perfect symmetry ie not a diseased human skull,, etc etc, then one can safely say that it may be--part alien ie a hybrid. See `Secret Vows` by Bert and Diane Twiggs of ALLEGED et contact and openly breeding of hybrid. Interestingly in that book, published about 20 years ago, the Greys claim that they need out DNA to repair a fault that is decimating their population, maybe also something to do with abductions reports of sex, implaning eggs, fetuses etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyTCG (talk • contribs) 00:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no "theory", false or otherwise, behind deciding what should or shouldn't be in the article. What goes in is verifiable content from reliable sources. I looked at your source(s). Part of it is a video, something I personally find hard to use because of its non-textual nature, and the rest is the website of an organisation which is clearly pushing an extreme view on this matter. Not good sources. And, as Dougweller says, no obvious relevance to what we decide should be in THIS article, i.e there was nothing there about the "starchild" skull. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You demonstrate a severe misunderstanding of skepticism. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Cleanup, NPOV and OR tags
I have removed these tags dating from May of 2010. The article in its current state is well-referenced and conforms to NPOV. I did remove a note about progeria until a reference is found. Porlob (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Article issues |article=|cleanup=May 2010|npov=May 2 2010|original research=May 2 2010 |date=


 * Sorry, I disagree and have added a Refimprove tag. The referencese are all primary sources and/or Fringe publications. No reliable third party sourcing. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of progeria illustration?
Since the article never mentions progeria as relevant to the topic, why do we have that illustration included in the article? I wasn't quite confident enough to cut it without asking, but I'm puzzled by its inclusion. Seanette (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe there was an accompanying note about Progeria in text at one point, but it wasn't well referenced (I believe it referenced a comment on a blog post), so I removed it. The illustration should probably go too, unless and until a proper ref can be found and added to the text. I'll go ahead and remove it for now. -Porlob (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Seanette (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)